Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Friday, June 27, 2008

The Dangers of Flowers

The Dangers of FlowersPity the poor elderly residents of a care home in my borough of Croydon, who have been told by our "respected" local council to take down the plastic flowers in their care home.

Croydon council has placed posters in the elderly people's home asking them to remove the tubs of plastic flowers that residents had placed in the accommodation, along with some ornaments, to add a splash of colour.

Nanny says that they pose a fire hazard to Tonbridge House and have said that failure to take heed of the warning "may result in legal action", leading to eviction.

Bastards!

It is no small irony that in days of yore the false blooms have been a success with the authorities, being featured in the council's own magazine.

Some residents have had their fake shrubs for 40 years. Bernard Towner, 65, called the decision "ridiculous".

However, the council has stood by its decision saying that pots placed in the corridors could be an obstruction if the building needed to be evacuated.

Resident Bernard Towner, 65, said:

"The wording of the letter was so aggressive - we might have been a bit more understanding if someone had come to speak to us but this was the first warning we got.

It's ridiculous really - I was talking to one lady who said she has had her flowers there since she moved in 40 years ago
."

A council tenancy officer ordered their removal after visiting Tonbridge House last week. Posters were put up demanding the corridors were cleared due to health and safety fears.

The worker said the residents were in breach of their tenancy agreements, and that their flower pots and trinkets were a fire hazard.

As said:

Bastards!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

9 comments:

  1. Ah, 'Elf'n'safety again!! Nanny's cover all excuse to get people to obey.

    I really don't know who these local council jobsworths think they are. It seems they wish to terrorise the very people they are supposed to be working for.

    I think a few people need to make complaints against the local council using the protection from harassment act 1997. Once a complaint has been made, the police must investigate the complaint, it seems to me that, much of the local council's course of conduct amounts to harassment. It would only take one successful case to put an end to the jackbooted attitude of many of our local councils and the little Hitlers that seem to be attracted to council jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having scrolled through this and the previous four posts, I can only conclude that the UK is one of the world's deadliest locales. I'm surprised the inhabitants are not queing en masse in front of the Afghan embassy for residency visas.

    Think about it. The UK citizenry are menaced by plastic flowers, the movement of the tides, and dodgy looking strangers who like to photograph buses (read terrorist and/or pervert).

    Even grammar schools pose a hazard, as they threaten to inculcate a little knowledge into young minds, and we all know how dangerous that can be.

    One wonders then how it is that anyone in the UK ever lives long enough to make it to a elderly care home.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:28 PM

    Black Sea,

    I suspect many elderly residents are really only 35. They just look older.

    Old enough so the govt. can provide a low cost pension and level of care and take them off the unemployment statistics.

    Just fudging numbers.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Philippa1:59 PM

    Hmmm...I wonder if this is actually legally enforceable? I think something that was said a long time ago on this blog is a good idea-every time some moronic jobsworth makes a petty little rule like this, ask them if it's actually legal or not. That should put them in a tight corner.

    ReplyDelete
  5. skydog2:13 PM

    ''However, the council has stood by its decision saying that pots placed in the corridors could be an obstruction if the building needed to be evacuated.''

    That's the public consumption blurb Ken. What the council actually mean is that they want them removed in case some burly fireperson (can I say 'fireman?' Well perhaps not) trips over them in the course of their firefighting duties (after a suitable H&S check of the burning premises before they allowed in of course to drag out the by now well toasted wrinklies) and breaks a finger nail which as a consequence will keep them off 'work' for the requisite 6 months, followed by a further 6 months convalescence and trauma counselling ... followed by a further 6 months 'phased return to work' (IOW: coming into the firestation and doing 'diversity training, equal opps etc.) for one hour per shift/day before the inevitable compensation claims through the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:17 PM

    Ken said: “failure to take heed of the warning "may result in legal action" …

    It’s important to realise that those sections of the state that include ‘threatening the public’ as part of their job description (probably the majority of them) have become, over time, pretty damned efficient in how they ply their trade.

    They use many tricks and methods to achieve their goals but one of their favourites is equivocation.

    So for example they may say: “We are hereby planning to take further action against you”.

    Their objective is to cause the terrified citizen to tremble in their boots, to think “Oh No! They’re planning to take legal action against me!”, and then cave in and comply with their demands.

    When all they really meant was: ‘We are planning to threaten you next month again’.

    So it would be worth the elderly residents checking that the word ‘legal’ was actually used. But even if it was, it may have a probability similar to being hit by lightning.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:35 PM

    Anon 6.17pm, I, myself, have used that very tactic in response to a bullying Council - and it works (especially if you end by using a little piece of legal terminology)!

    How nice it would be to hear that someone who had the confidence and knowledge to take on Nanny was taking up the cudgel on behalf of the vulnerable. There seems to be no-one in authority who hasn't been corrupted by Nanny.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:59 AM

    Thanks Anon 6:35 PM.

    The essential skill I’ve developed in life is to filter out and ignore all the (we’re going to do this to you …, we’re going to do that to you …) mindless mayhem the state has to offer. I let their empty threats bounce off and concentrate instead on getting on with life, aka Nill illigitimi carborundum [Note Ken: potential tee shirt money spinner].

    I don’t know who first coined the phrase Nill illigitimi carborundum but I do empathise and understand what was going through their mind at the time.

    If that doesn’t work and the ant hill eventually becomes too uncomfortable to sit on, I uproot, move on, and find somewhere more congenial to rest my head (the simple law of cause and effect).

    I don’t have any plastic flowers about the house, which may be why they haven’t threatened me on that one yet, but if they did I’m sure my response would be the same.

    So that’s the abridged version of my philosophy for life entitled Nill illigitimi carborundum and I can only offer it as a suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lord of Atlantis1:31 PM

    I was absolutely appalled by the attitude of Croyden council. Many of the residents being threatened with eviction fought against Hitler to preserve our freedom, and those on the council who sanctioned this policy would not be here today if they hadn't done so. I wouldn't blame them at all, if they were wondering why they had bothered. In my opinion, these jobsworths aren't fit to wipe these pensioners' a***s.

    ReplyDelete